( My Comments on A.R. Venkatachalapathy's article appeared in 'The Arena' of The Hindu )

1.When asked about the death of Prabakaran Karunanithi said " maaveerarkalukku maranamillai" .In Tigers dictionary 'maaveerar' means 'martyr'. So he indirectly admitted the death. Karunanithi never endorsed the view of P.Nedumaran.

2. It is wrong to say "Sri Lankan Tamils could never identify themselves with the (dominant) non-Brahmin component of the Dravidian movement, nor endorse the radical social reform programme championed by Periyar" . In Eelam, Bramhins population is very less. So,no anti brahmin movement is needed. But politically and culturally the Eelam Tamils are influenced by Dravidian movement.

3.Equating Cheran's poetry with A.Muttulingam's prose is atrocious. It is not only an injustice to Cheran also to the sensibility of a good reader.

4. Karl Marx once said "The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living". It is not only for Men who makes their history also for Historians like Chalapathy.

The Human Rights Council,Reaffirming the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations,Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments,Bearing in mind General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006,Recalling Council resolutions 5/1 and 5/2 of 18 June 2007, on institution-building of the Human Rights Council,Recalling Human Rights Council resolution 19/2 of 22 March 2012 on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka,Reaffirming
that it is the responsibility of each State to ensure the full
enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire
population,Reaffirming
also that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism
complies with their obligations under international law, in particular
international human rights law, international refugee law and
international humanitarian law, as applicable,Welcoming
the announcement by the Government of Sri Lanka to hold elections to
the Provincial Council in the Northern Province in September 2013,Welcoming
and acknowledging the progress made by the Government of Sri Lanka in
rebuilding infrastructure, demining, resettling the majority of
internally displaced persons, and noting nonetheless that considerable
work lies ahead in the areas of justice, reconciliation and resumption
of livelihoods, and stressing the importance of the full participation
of local populations, including representatives of civil society and
minorities, in these efforts,Taking
note of the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission
of Sri Lanka and its findings and recommendations, and acknowledging its
possible contribution to the process of national reconciliation in Sri
Lanka,Taking
note of the National Plan of Action to implement the recommendations of
the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of the Government of
Sri Lanka and its commitments as set forth in response to the findings
and recommendations of the Commission,Noting
that the national plan of action does not adequately address all of the
findings and constructive recommendations of the Commission,Recalling
the constructive recommendations contained in the Commission’s report,
including the need to credibly investigate widespread allegations of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, demilitarize the
north of Sri Lanka, implement impartial land dispute resolution
mechanisms, re-evaluate detention policies, strengthen formerly
independent civil institutions, reach a political settlement on the
devolution of power to the provinces, promote and protect the right of
freedom of expression for all and enact rule of law reforms,Noting
with concern that the National Plan of Action and the Commission’s
report do not adequately address serious allegations of violations of
international human rights law and international humanitarian law,Expressing
concern at the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri
Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings,
torture, and violations of the rights to freedom of expression,
association and peaceful assembly, as well as intimidation of and
reprisals against human rights defenders, members of civil society and
journalists, threats to judicial independence and the rule of law, and
discrimination on the basis of religion or belief,Calling
upon the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its public commitments,
including on the devolution of political authority, which is integral to
reconciliation and the full enjoyment of human rights by all members of
its population,Expressing
appreciation for the efforts of the Government of Sri Lanka in
facilitating the visit of a technical mission from the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and encouraging the
Government to increase its dialogue and cooperation with the Office of
the High Commissioner,Noting
the High Commissioner’s call for an independent and credible
international investigation into alleged violations of international
human rights law and international humanitarian law,1.
Welcomes the report of the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights on advice and technical assistance for the
Government of Sri Lanka on promoting reconciliation and accountability
in Sri Lanka[1] and the recommendations and conclusions contained
therein, in particular on the establishment of a truth-seeking mechanism
as an integral part of a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to
transitional justice;2.
Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations
made in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner, and also
calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to conduct an independent and
credible investigation into allegations of violations of international
human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable;3.
Reiterates its call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement
effectively the constructive recommendations made in the report of the
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and to take all necessary
additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment
to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity
and accountability, and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans;4.
Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to cooperate with special
procedures mandate holders and to respond formally to their outstanding
requests, including by extending invitations and providing access;5.
Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner and relevant special
procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with and with the
concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka, advice and technical
assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps;6.
Requests the Office of the High Commissioner, with input from relevant
special procedures mandate holders, as appropriate, to present an oral
updateto the Human Rights Council at its twenty-fourth session, and a
comprehensive report followed by a discussion at the twenty-fifth
session, on the implementation of the present resolutionCo-sponsors of the resolution;Austria,
Canada, Croatia, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Finland, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, St Kitts and Nevis, Sweden, Switzerland,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States
of America.

In a resolution (A/HRC/22/L.1/Rev1) on promoting reconciliation and
accountability in Sri Lanka, adopted by a vote of 25 in favour, 13
against and 8 abstentions, the Council welcomes the report of the High
Commissioner on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri
Lanka; encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the
recommendations made in the report of the High Commissioner, and to
cooperate with Special Procedures mandate holders and to respond
formally to their outstanding requests, including by extending
invitations and providing access. The Council also calls upon the Government of Sri
Lanka to conduct an independent and credible investigation into
allegations of violations of international human rights law and
international humanitarian law, as applicable; and requests the High
Commissioner to present an oral update to the Council at its
twenty-fourth session, and a comprehensive report followed by a
discussion at the twenty-fifth session, on the implementation of the
present resolution.

United States,
introducing resolution L.1, encouraged Sri Lanka to take the necessary
steps to ensure accountability and lasting peace following almost three
decades of civil war. The resolution welcomed important progress made
by Sri Lanka but also recognized that much remained to be done. The
resolution also highlighted the constructive role of the Office of the
High Commissioner and of special procedures’ mandate holders in
providing technical assistance and advice, and encouraged Sri Lanka to
cooperate these actors.

Pakistan, speaking in a general
comment, said that the delegation of Sri Lanka had briefed several
delegations bilaterally and in regional groups and had explained in
detail why it found the resolution unacceptable despite several
revisions. In draft resolution 22/L.1, Pakistan observed that the
parameters had been shifted with the introduction of substantive
elements and this was of concern, given that Sri Lanka was being asked
in effect to implement the recommendations of the Office of the High
Commissioner’s report with disregard to the on-going domestic
reconciliation process. The substantive amendments proposed by Pakistan
and other delegations during informal sessions, intended to bring some
semblance of balance to the text, had been disregarded. Pakistan then
called for a vote on the resolution.India, speaking in a
general comment, said that the resolution on Sri Lanka provided an
opportunity to forge a way forward through national and inclusive
reconciliation. India noted with concern that Sri Lanka had not kept
its 2009 commitments and called on Sri Lanka to move forward on its
public commitments and to take measures to ensure accountability. India
had always been of the view that the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka
had presented an opportunity to achieve a lasting peace. Sri Lanka’s
elections scheduled for 2013 were an opportunity for its people to
exercise their electoral right in a free environment.

Ireland,
speaking on behalf of the European Union, in a general comment, said
that the European Union fully supported all efforts to promote
reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. The European Union
noted that the main sponsor had reached out to the country concerned and
had sought to address a number of its concerns. Genuine reconciliation
was essential and required justice and accountability for past events.
The European Union urged Sri Lanka to carry out independent, credible
investigations of alleged violations of international human rights and
international humanitarian law. The European Union urged the
Government to cooperate with the special procedures’ mandate holders and
to respond to all outstanding requests.

Montenegro,
speaking in a general comment, fully aligned itself with the resolution
on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka, which it
saw as a step towards achieving lasting peace. Montenegro welcomed the
improvements made by Sri Lanka and joined with other countries in
encouraging the Sri Lankan Government to take additional steps towards
the promotion of justice and the implementation of real reconciliation.
Justice would be essential if there was to be true reconciliation after
a long and divisive civil war in the country.

Switzerland,
speaking in a general comment, welcomed the submission of the
resolution on Sri Lanka and remained concerned about the human rights
situation in the country. Switzerland underlined the importance of
dialogue and cooperation for the process of achieving reconciliation and
encouraged Sri Lanka to enhance its cooperation with the Office of the
High Commissioner and with special procedures’ mandate holders.

Sierra Leone,
speaking in a general comment, said that as a country that had
witnessed a bloody and destructive 10-year civil war and from which it
that had bounced back through genuine reconciliation and accountability,
was compelled to support this resolution. Sierra Leone considered it
to be fair, balanced and designed to bring about accountability and
reconciliation. Sierra Leone was aware of the glaring fact that the
only way to bring meaningful and sustainable reconciliation was through
an end to impunity and through meaningful accountability. This
resolution did just that in a fair way. Sierra Leone supported it and
called on other States to do the same.Brazil, speaking in
a general comment, said that it had followed with interest and concern
the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and that it showed challenges
and advancements since the end of the conflict in 2009. The Sri Lankan
Government had made significant progress in building infrastructure and
resettling displaced persons. Cooperation with the United Nations human
rights’ mechanisms was a two-way street and Brazil encouraged the High
Commissioner to act upon the invitation of the Government to visit the
country.

Venezuela, speaking in a general comment,
categorically rejected the selectivity and double standards which were
increasingly used in the Council against the will of countries
concerned, as had been the case with Sri Lanka. The Council was turning
a blind eye to the efforts that Sri Lanka was undertaking to improve
the human rights situation. Venezuela warned about the serious risks
created by the interventionist approaches of certain Members of the
Council and stated that would vote against the resolution.

Ecuador,
speaking in a general comment, said that it had always condemned
violations of human rights anywhere in the world. There should be no
biased approach to specific countries nor should double standards be
tolerated in the Council. Sri Lanka was showing signs of political will
to improve the human rights situation and, therefore, Ecuador would
vote against the resolution on Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka,
speaking as the concerned country, said that the draft resolution before
the Council was premised upon resolution 19/2 of 2012 which was not
recognised by Sri Lanka. Despite its dissociation with that initiative,
Sri Lanka had shown clear progress towards comprehensive reconciliation
including by the preparation and implementation of the action plan
called for by the resolution. The draft resolution before the Council
today was unacceptable to Sri Lanka. The present draft moved
dramatically away from the ambit and scope of previous resolution 19/2
and the preambular part of the text was highly intrusive, replete with
misrepresentations and, in its overall scope, accentuated the negative
and eliminated or was dismissive of the positive. The tone set for the
rest of the document was overwhelmingly pessimistic. The paragraph
dealing with progress achieved ignored many areas of clear progress. It
also sought to allege continuing reports of discrimination on grounds
of religion or belief when this was manifestly not the case. Sri
Lanka’s constructive engagement through the Universal Periodic Review
process had unfortunately been ignored.

The operative
paragraphs of the text showed they were based on a political process.
Sri Lanka noted that the report introduced new elements such as an
international inquiry, incidentally first proposed by the Council in May
2009. The reference to the Panel of Experts’ report set the dangerous
precedent of introducing unsubstantiated reports. Sri Lanka totally
rejected attempts by the Office of the High Commissioner and others to
introduce elements of the Panel of Experts’ report, which attempted to
legitimize its recommendations and seek to impose them on Sri Lanka.
Why this preoccupation with Sri Lanka? Why the inordinate and
disproportionate attention, despite so much progress in a relatively
short period of time? Given the background and anomalous nature of the
text, many countries would naturally have concerns as it could establish
a bad precedent. Stakeholders may be forewarned that if the current
tendency towards politicization continued the Council may face the fate
of its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. Rather than singled
out, Sri Lanka should be encouraged in its current process of
reconciliation. Indonesia, speaking in an explanation of
the vote before the vote, said that it could not go along with the
resolution on Sri Lanka because it believed that during this difficult
transitional period Sri Lanka deserved support and assistance. Sri
Lanka should be allowed to spend its energy and resources on the
implementation of its National Action Plan. The adoption of Sri Lanka’s
Universal Periodic Review last week demonstrated the country’s
engagement with United Nations’ mechanisms.

Thailand,
speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it
remained concerned about the draft resolution on Sri Lanka and would
vote against it. The resolution did not take into account the
continuing progress which Sri Lanka was making in the implementation of
recommendations. Thailand urged Sri Lanka to continue to ensure
accountability and to combat impunity, but recognized that the process
would take time.

Republic of Korea, speaking in an
explanation of the vote before the vote, noted with appreciation the
efforts and the achievements made by Sri Lanka in rebuilding
infrastructure, demining, and rehabilitating child soldiers. Republic
of Korea understood the importance of accountability for genuine
reconciliation and the considerable difficulties faced in the process of
ensuring it. The Republic of Korea would vote in favour of this
resolution. Japan, speaking in an explanation of the vote
before the vote, said that it attached utmost importance to the
promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Japan welcomed
certain progress in rebuilding infrastructure and resettlement of
internally displaced persons. However many challenges remained. Japan
encouraged Sri Lanka to make the utmost efforts to continue to cooperate
with the international community. It would abstain from the vote on
the resolution.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Pooja Patel: appalled at the Sri Lankan delegation’s claim that the military offers “no intrusive presence impacting on civilian life” in the north

Friday, 15 March 2013

Thank you, Mr. President. FORUM-ASIA makes this statement in association with its member organisations in Sri Lanka, Law and Society Trust (LST) and INFORM-Human Rights Documentation Centre. We express our disappointment with the manner in which the Sri Lankan delegation engaged with the UPR Working Group and regret the absurd move made by several States to edit their recommendations so that the outcome document focuses only on the National Plan of Action, not the entire recommendations from the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).

Mr. President, the blunt rejection of a great number of useful and important UPR recommendations is an additional telling sign that this government’s commitment to reconciliation and accountability is simply rhetorical. For instance, the government rejected the recommendations to set up a national mechanism to look into the issue of enforced disappearances, which was also recommended by LLRC, and refused to accept the visit request of the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances which is long outstanding. Furthermore, the government’s reply that the recommendations regarding protection of human rights defenders “are already catered for by the Constitution and ordinary Penal Code” and therefore there is no need for the adoption of national policies, shows its total disconnection from the reality on the ground demonstrated by the well documented cases of threats, intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders, journalists and media personnel in the country.

Mr. President, we draw the Council’s attention to the ongoing human rights violations in the Tamil-majority north of Sri Lanka. Last week, the police prevented hundreds of families of disappeared persons from conducting a peaceful procession to Colombo from Vavuniya to deliver a petition to the UN office. In November 2012, the military cracked down on a peaceful protest at Jaffna University and detained student activists for several months without due process. Journalists and newspaper distributors from the Jaffna-based newspaper Uthayan were brutally attacked allegedly by military and intelligence officers in civilian clothing in November 2012 and again in January 2013, which follows the decades of killings, abductions and assaults against Uthayan’s staff.

Finally, Mr. President, we are appalled at the Sri Lankan delegation’s claim during the UPR Working Group session that the military offers “no intrusive presence impacting on civilian life” in the north. We call for the immediate end of military involvement in civilian affairs. The approximately 85,000 soldiers deployed currently in the north and east must be significantly reduced. Thank you, Mr. President.

MAHINDA SAMARASINGHE, Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy of the President of Sri Lanka on Human Rights,
said that a year after its first Universal Periodic Review in 2008, Sri
Lanka had finally achieved success in the humanitarian operation of
rescuing the civilian population held by a ruthless group of terrorists.
It had engaged since May 2009 in a period of consolidation, removing
military involvement in civil administration, reconstruction, demining,
rehabilitation and resettlement and had launched initial efforts and
national reconciliation and peace-building. Sri Lanka had received a
total of 204 recommendations during its second Review and had accepted
113, while 91 recommendations did not enjoy its support; Sri Lanka also
made 19 voluntary commitments. Sri Lanka had accepted 12 recommendations
specifically referring to the National Action Plan for the
implementation of the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission.

Turning to the process of
accountability, Sri Lanka said that the first issue to be addressed was
that of the figures of the civilian victims, which had been repeated by
several sources without once verifying the facts. Also, the military
authorities had ongoing inquiries on civilian casualties during the
humanitarian operation; a database on detainees was available to the
next of kin and the investigations into cases of disappearance were
ongoing though national mechanisms. The National Action Plan for the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights was a commitment that had grown
from the initial Review in 2008 and Sri Lanka was currently engaged in
the evaluation of the first year of its implementation; the National
Plan aimed to consolidate gains and to systematically address the
various human rights issues and challenges. Sri Lanka would now have to
conceive of a mechanism that would take into consideration the accepted
recommendations and pledges made during the second Review. Sri Lanka was
confident that by its next Review in 2017 it would be able to
demonstrate further progress in the promotion and protection of the
human rights of its people.

Oman said that Sri Lanka had
accepted most of the recommendations made, which demonstrated its
willingness to cooperate with the Council and showed its determination
to comply with human rights obligations.

Pakistan said
that it was encouraging to see that Sri Lanka had made 19 voluntary
commitments, including for the protection of the rights of women and
children, the advancement of the reconciliation process, and the
reintegration of ex-combatants in society.

Philippines
said that Sri Lanka had shown deep commitment to the advancement of
human rights. The Philippines welcomed in particular acceptance by Sri
Lanka of the recommendation pertaining to the National Action Plan and
the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. Concern was expressed
at the situation of migrant workers and their families, and the
Philippines looked forward to the ratification by Sri Lanka of
International Labour Organization Convention 189.

Russia
said that Sri Lanka’s second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review had
again confirmed its readiness and openness to engage in open dialogue.
Sri Lanka had agreed to the majority of recommendations made and those
accepted were truly constructive and non-politicised in nature. Russia
appreciated Sri Lanka’s list of voluntary commitments on many aspects of
human rights.

Sudan said that Sri Lanka had accepted a
great number of recommendations, most of which were positive and
constructive. Sudan welcomed the acceptance of two recommendations on
consolidation of law enforcement and resettlement of internally
displaced persons. It was important to create an environment that made
it possible for citizens to enjoy their rights.

United Arab Emirates
welcomed positive measures undertaken by the Government to implement
the recommendations from the first cycle of the Universal Periodic
Review. The United Arab Emirates took note of Sri Lanka’s statement on
giving new impetus to the human rights system and promoting human
rights. It was fully confident that Sri Lanka would move forward and
hoped it would be supported in this.

United Kingdom
expressed serious concern about freedom of expression in Sri Lanka and
asked why the recommendation to invite the Special Rapporteur on freedom
of expression and opinion to visit the country was rejected. Sri Lanka
gave no justification for the rejection of the recommendations relating
to the independence of the judiciary. The impeachment of the Chief
Justice ran contrary to the clear rulings of Sri Lanka’s highest courts
and contravened principles of fairness, due process and respect for the
independence of the judiciary.

United States welcomed the
acceptance of recommendations to combat gender-based violence and
investigate breaches of international humanitarian law and international
human rights law. The United States was disappointed that Sri Lanka had
rejected the implementation of the recommendations of its Lessons
Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and nearly all recommendations to
engage with the United Nations Special Procedures mandate holders.

Venezuela
welcomed the spirit of openness and cooperation that Sri Lanka had
demonstrated in the second Universal Periodic Review process and urged
it to implement the recommendations of its Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission. Venezuela recognized the efforts of Sri Lanka
to implement recommendations from its first Review, notably those
relating to the improvement of the enjoyment of human rights and those
related to peace.

Viet Nam said that serious efforts had
been made by Sri Lanka in relation to the national reconstruction and
reconciliation process, and noted with satisfaction the ongoing
implementation of 19 voluntary commitments made by Sri Lanka.
Nevertheless, challenges and hardships remained to be overcome, for
which an environment favourable to creating a stable and peaceful Sri
Lanka was crucial.

Algeria said that Sri Lanka had
actively shown it was willing to further advance human rights by
intensifying the policies it was undertaking for the protection of the
human rights of women and children in particular.

Belarus
commended Sri Lanka on the adoption of a National Action Plan and the
measures taken to reform and enhance national legislation, and said that
Sri Lanka had shown strong commitment to the promotion and protection
of human rights.

China said that it appreciated Sri
Lanka’s important achievements in advancing domestic reconciliation.
China called on the international community to respect Sri Lanka’s
sovereignty, objectively look at its advancements, provide constructive
assistance, and avoid interfering in its domestic affairs. China
supported the adoption of the outcome.

A member of the delegation of Sri Lanka,
in response to a statement made by the United Kingdom with reference to
the impeachment of the Chief Justice, stated that the Constitution and
procedural matrix involved in the impeachment of judges of the Superior
Court was not some process invented on a person-centric, ad hoc manner.
In that context it was correct to state that the invocation of that
procedure to meet requirements that emerged consequent to facts to the
case concerned was justifiable. However, the entire process and a ruling
by a division by the Supreme Court on the matter had now been brought
under the judicial review.

Human Rights Watch said that
Sri Lanka had rejected the recommendations to implement the
recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.
As further evidence of its lack of commitment to accountability, the
Government had turned down basic recommendations focusing on the need to
end impunity and investigate serious allegations of human rights
violations.

World Evangelical Alliance welcomed the
acceptance of recommendations to promote reconciliation and
inter-religious dialogue, but was puzzled that religious freedom was
still an issue in Sri Lanka. In the words of the United Nations
Secretary-General, the rule of law was fostered by a strong civil
society, practiced tolerance and celebrated diversity. Pluralism was not
a problem, it was the solution.

Amnesty International
presented the case of Mr. Ragihar Monaharan, one of five university
students murdered by Sri Lankan security forces on 2 January in 2006;
his family had been forced to flee the country when their lives had been
threatened because they sought justice for their son’s murder.

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development,
in a joint statement, said that it was extremely disappointed that Sri
Lanka’s recommendations had been amended so that they focused on the
National Action Plan, which included only a fraction of the
recommendations originally made. The rejection of a large number of
recommendations by Sri Lanka, for example to investigate enforced
disappearances, demonstrated Sri Lanka’s limited commitment to the
reconciliation process.

United Nations Watch said that
forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence against
women, and restrictions on freedom of expression remained prevalent in
Sri Lanka. It was regrettable therefore that Sri Lanka had rejected many
valuable recommendations made in that respect. Moreover, attacks on the
independence of the judiciary and reported cases of child rape and
violence against women were particularly alarming.

International Commission of Jurists
said that Sri Lanka had failed to uphold its pledge to conduct an
independent investigation into allegations of gross human rights
violations during the war. Furthermore, the recent removal of the legal
Chief Justice of Sri Lanka through an impeachment process declared
unconstitutional by the country’s Supreme Court was particularly
alarming. This was the latest in a long series of attacks against the
independence of the judiciary.

Action Canada for Population and Development
said that it was disappointed with Sri Lanka’s lack of engagement or
acceptance of recommendations on non-discrimination on the basis of
gender identity. It was also concerned about the lack of response on
recommendation 128.24 on decriminalizing homosexual relationships
between consenting adults.

Jubilee Campaign expressed
grave concern that the period since the end of the war in Sri Lanka had
been marked by State-sponsored Sinhala Buddhist triumphalism, the
weakening of democratic institutions and the rule of law, the
constriction of civil and political rights, abductions and forcible
disappearances, and a widespread climate of fear among human rights
defenders and journalists.

CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation
said that the rejection and delayed implementation of crucial
recommendations had shown a lack of commitment to addressing serious
human rights concerns. Several prominent human rights activists had been
subject to slanderous campaigns instigated by the Sri Lankan Government
portraying them as traitors for raising concerns about human rights
violations.

Liberation said that the refusal of Sri Lanka
to ratify a number of international instruments such as the Rome Statute
spoke loudly about its commitment to address accountability and torture
in the country. The Human Rights Council should take measures to
address accountability and impunity in Sri Lanka, given the evidence of
war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the lack of will of the
Government to address them.

MAHINDA SAMARASINGHE, Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy of the President of Sri Lanka on Human Rights,
in his closing remarks, thanked the delegations expressing their
support to Sri Lanka and stressed that the conflict was 30 years long
and involved ruthless terrorists, causing the suffering of many
thousands of people. During this period, many civilians had been
murdered by the Tamil Tigers; thousands and thousands of Muslims had
been forced out of their homes and Buddhist places of warship had been
targeted. All the talk about killings and atrocities must be balanced
and include also those committed by the Tamil Tigers. Sri Lanka was
diverse society in which freedom of religion or belief was guaranteed
and the Government did not condone any attacks on places of worship. The
investigation into the death of five university students had commenced;
Sri Lanka needed time and space to deal with such gruesome events and
with the challenges ahead and had not absolved itself from
responsibility. Sri Lanka was committed to achieving national
reconciliation and sustainable peace and asked all to be balanced and
impartial.__________

During the UPR process in November 2012, Sri Lanka rejected 100 recommendations – nearly half of those proposed by United Nations member states, including many related to accountability and justice issues. Among the rejected recommendations was one to implement the government’s own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommendations. Instead the government committed only to implement its National Action Plan on the LLRC – which ignores nearly 50 percent of the recommendations made by the LLRC.

The LLRC’s recommendations were themselves already severely limited in scope. The UN Human Rights Council noted with concern that the LLRC report “does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law.” Human Rights Watch criticized the LLRC report because it disregards the worst abuses by government forces, rehashes longstanding and unfulfilled recommendations, and fails to advance accountability for victims of abuses during Sri Lanka’s civil armed conflict. By restricting its focus to the National Action Plan on the LLRC, the Sri Lankan government indicated that it is even unwilling to accept and implement recommendations by its own body.

In addition, as further evidence of its lack of commitment on accountability, the government turned down basic recommendations focusing on the need to end impunity and investigate serious allegations of human rights violations. For instance, the government rejected a call from the US to “end impunity for human rights violations and fulfill legal obligations regarding accountability.” It also rejected Thailand’s recommendation to strengthen relevant legislative and administrative measures to ensure transparency and non-impunity in the judicial process on all alleged enforced disappearance cases including investigation, prosecution and reparation, which would help contribute towards its national reconciliation.

In his presentation Minister Samarasinghe forgot to mention that on February 15, the Army Court of Inquiry set up to look into allegations of war crimes during the war exonerated the army of any liability for civilian casualties. This puts to rest any hope that the domestic process will adequately respond to such allegations.

In many instances, the Sri Lankan government rejected the recommendations by arguing that it had already implemented them. However, that assertion is fundamentally untrue. For example, the government stated that it had established a database where families of those forcibly disappeared can search the whereabouts of their loved ones, despite a complete absence of evidence that victims have had access to such a database. Notably, the government of Sri Lanka rejected all the recommendations that were made during the UPR regarding the need to protect human rights defenders and their work. Sri Lanka has a dismal track record on this issue. Since the March 2012 resolution was passed, civil society and media in Sri Lanka who are critical of the government or support accountability have come under attack.

Finally, the Sri Lankan government, both during the UPR and this Council session, repeatedly stated that it has cooperated fully with the United Nations. Yet among the recommendations rejected by the government were those requesting its full cooperation with the UN Special Procedures, including responding to pending request to visit the country.

-----------
Statement made by the HRW at adoption of Sri Lanka UPR report on 15 March 2013, 22 session UNHRC
Item 6
Adoption of the Outcome of the UPR of Sri Lanka

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Siobhain McDonagh: What is happening to women in fformer war zone is not acceptable

Facing life after the war in Sri Lanka by Siobhain McDonagh, Member of Parliament (UK) @ UNHRC on 11.03, 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen. Invited dignitaries and guests. Friends.
I am very grateful to have been given the opportunity to speak at today’s event.
I
never thought, when I became a British Member of Parliament for my
constituency of Mitcham & Morden in 1997, that I would at some stage
be addressing a UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, on the
plight of Tamil women in North Sri Lanka.
However, the situation of the Tamils on the
island is now one that is very close to my heart. It is because of the
Tamil community in my constituency that I became involved in the Tamil
cause. The information that I have received from them, particularly the
horror stories described from the final months of the armed conflict in
2008/2009, have had a lasting effect on me.

Yet the human rights
violations of Tamils did not stop when the war ended. The culture of
impunity on the island has meant that the rights of Tamil men and women,
and indeed those of many others who stand up to the Rajapaksa regime,
are dishonoured and abused to this day.

On Friday 8th March, we celebrated International Women’s Day.

A
time not only to celebrate the contribution of women to social,
political, cultural and domestic life in all countries around the world,
but also to serve as an important reminder that in many places the
fundamental rights of so many women are still at risk.

This
year’s United Nations International Women’s Day theme is ‘A promise is a
promise: Time for action to end violence against women’.

One such country where promises are made but easily broken is Sri Lanka.

In
May 2009, a mere matter of days following the brutal end of the armed
conflict, President Rajapaksa gave a set of public assurances to the UN
Secretary-General.

the economic and political empowerment of the Tamil majority north and east of the island would be secured;work would get underway to build a lasting political settlement;t he promotion and protection of human rights would be a priority;and measures would be taken to address the violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the war.

However in the almost four years since that statement was made, those promises have not been fulfilled.

It
should come as no surprise, therefore, that similar such assurances to
combat violence against women in Sri Lanka, particularly those in the
former conflict areas of the North and East, have been broken too.

At
the UN review of Sri Lanka’s human rights record in November 2012, the
Sri Lankan delegation claimed that the ‘protection of women and
advancement of their rights has been a cornerstone of Government policy
in the post-conflict phase’.

However it is impossible to take the Government of Sri Lanka at its word. Gender based violence was used as a weapon of war.

The
Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields documentary series has provided compelling
evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the
conflict. I am so pleased that Callum Macrae and his team have been able
to preview their latest film, ‘No Fire Zone’, in Geneva, in spite of
the protests from Sri Lanka.

The images shown in these
documentaries are among the most harrowing ever to appear on screen and
included footage of dead female Tamil combatants and others who appear
to have been sexually abused and then murdered by the State security
forces.

In the months following the end of the armed conflict, over 300,000 people were herded into internal displacement camps.

Numerous
reports emerged of the intimidation, harassment and sexual abuse
committed against women whilst there. ‘The Australian’ newspaper was
just one of a number of media organisations, who reported on the
creation of prostitution rings “run by officials” within IDP camps.

However
the vulnerability of women was not only confined within these camps,
but has become a predominant feature in the lives of women.

Given
the extensive loss of life in the final months of the armed conflict
alone, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians,
with many more unaccounted for, there are up to 90,000 war widows
heading up households in the region.

Since May 2009, the north and east have been militarised by the State.

The militarisation of the region may suggest an increased level of security for the inhabitants.

However the reverse has been true.

The current environment has posed a particular threat to the many Tamil female headed family households.

Although
the military camps are closed, many people have been unable to return
to their lands, houses and livelihoods. Relief aid to these people is
unreliable, and the displaced women have arrived back, often with no
assets or limited skills. The atmosphere of occupation by the army has
made it all but impossible for the Tamil community to provide services.

In
September 2012, India’s ‘Hindu’ newspaper reported an “overwhelming
presence” of the military, with the Sri Lankan army “deploying 16 out of
its 19 divisions in the Tamil-dominated regions”. Through its vast
network of checkpoints, between and within villages and towns, the
security services are able to restrict the movement of residents and
monitor their activities.

Tamil women are, therefore, forced to
negotiate their lives with the soldiers in the region – and are subject
to regular abuse. According to the International Crisis Group, “women
in Sri Lanka’s predominantly Tamil-speaking north and east are facing a
desperate lack of security in the aftermath of the long civil war.
[…]The fact that women must rely on the military for everyday needs not
only puts them at greater risk of gender-based violence, but also
prevents them from building their own capacity within communities”.

Whilst
the Government of Sri Lanka has said that ‘any correlation between
military presence and sexual violence is unfounded’, credible reports
from governments, international human rights organisations and
representatives of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka state otherwise.

The
Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has reported on the “increasing number of
sexual assaults carried out against women and girls in the Jaffna,
Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi districts, often by government officials and
the military. The brutality with which these assaults are carried out is
especially disturbing”.

The UK’s High Commissioner to Sri Lanka,
Mr John Rankin, has “discussed rising crime rates for violence against
women with the police in these regions and more generally”.

And
according to the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights,
“the fact that the military are increasingly taking over police duties,
meaning that women and girls would have to address complaints directly
to the perpetrators […] [they, therefore] avoid speaking out due to fear
of stigmatization, threats and possible further attacks”.

The
high number of female headed households and the restricted livelihood
opportunities open to women – due in large part to the military’s
involvement in economic activities – means that “prostitution and the
emergence of brothels [are] on the increase in the Vanni […with] the
primary clientele compris[ing] both local men and the military”. ‘Sri
Lanka Brief’ have stated in their latest human rights report.

Tamil
women have also been coerced into joining the armed forces. Young women
from female-headed families or families with five or more members have
been targeted, falsely informed that they would be engaging in clerical
work and then taken to military camps for training, not being allowed to
leave.

This is unacceptable.

At least 20 recent,
forced recruits, many of whom were unconscious, were admitted to
Kilinochchi district hospital in December 2012 and no-one was allowed to
meet them whilst they were there, including family, friends and
representatives from the TNA.

As the Women’s Action Network
(WAN), a collective of 11 women's groups from the North and the East,
stated at the time “this situation raises grave concerns regarding the
role of the state and the military in the lives of women, […] and the
continued security of these women while in service”.

International
Crisis Group has said previously that “the international response to
women’s insecurity [in Sri Lanka] has been unnecessarily muted”.

With
international NGOs unable to freely monitor the situation and treatment
of women in the North and East, due to restrictions imposed by the
Government and security forces, the true scale of abuse, destitution and
desperation suffered by women in the region is very difficult to
assess.

However, the evidence of abuses described, as well as
the findings from Human Rights Watch most recent report, which details
sexual violence against Tamil women and men by Sri Lankan security
forces in detention centres, serves to highlight why it is incumbent
upon the international community and the United Nations in particular to
speak out about what is happening in Sri Lanka.

As the International Women’s Day states, it is time for action to end violence against women.

Therefore,
it is most certainly time that Sri Lanka is held to account for its
actions and made to live up its international obligations to end state
sanctioned gender based violence.

To that end, I call on the Government of Sri Lanka to do the following:

Promote and protect women’s rights;
Take concrete actions to end gender based violence;
Cease and desist the coercion of Tamil women into the military;
Demilitarise the Tamil majority areas; restore complete civil
administration to all militarised government departments; and ensure
that the military desist from involvement in any economic activities
which undermine the livelihood opportunities for inhabitants,
particularly women, in Tamil areas.

I also urge the Government to
support the UN Women’s Initiative, which is calling on Governments
everywhere to COMMIT to end violence against women and girls.

However, if history has told us anything, then the Government are unlikely to do any of these things willingly.

Therefore,
I feel it is imperative that the international community, including the
United Nations and particularly this Council, must:

Remain seized of the situation in Sri Lanka Call for the demilitarisation of Tamil majority areas; ask the UN country team in Sri Lanka to monitor the ground realities for women the north and east; AND be prepared to speak out against all cases of gender-based violence and gender inequalities in Sri Lanka.

In
addition, I urge all of you to support the establishment of
international, independent war crimes investigation in Sri Lanka. The
creation of such a mechanism would be a crucial step in ensuring
accountability, challenging the culture of impunity, and enabling
reconciliation.

This would, no doubt, have a huge, positive impact on the rights of all people, particularly Tamil women, in Sri Lanka.

Friday, March 8, 2013

The Commonwealth is an organisation which normally bumps along well under the radar. What bounces it into prominence is a row. And the Commonwealth has a history of good rows, over issues that matter, like apartheid in South Africa, judicial murder in Nigeria or dictatorship in Zimbabwe, and on which it has been able to make a difference. Such moments make everyone pay attention to a body that many rather lazily think is not that relevant any longer. Few will remember, for instance, that this Monday is Commonwealth Day.

The Commonwealth is about due for another row, and indeed it desperately needs to have one on the unwisdom, weekly becoming more obvious, of choosing Sri Lanka as host for the next heads of government meeting in November this year. Otherwise we may find ourselves in the ludicrous situation of sending the Queen or Prince Charles off to a country which has very serious unresolved human rights charges hanging over it, which has yet to justify executive interference in the judiciary, or has failed to adequately investigate the killing of journalists. When our royals arrive they could therefore be in the unhappy position of giving credit to a gathering from which important countries and close allies, like Canada, may well have chosen to absent themselves. That would be a disaster for them, for Britain, and for the Commonwealth.

Sri Lanka is of course adamant that there can be no question of changing the venue. The Commonwealth secretary general, Kamalesh Sharma, has recently visited Colombo and appears to have extracted assurances from the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa on a number of issues. They are weak in that, for example, while there is a commitment to listen to Commonwealth advice on relations between the executive and the judiciary in the future, there is no mention of reconsidering the recent impeachment and dismissal of Sri Lanka's chief justice. They can hardly be regarded as sufficient, especially as Sri Lanka has such a bad record of promising to do things and then failing to do them.

The most vexing aspect is that the Commonwealth has a mechanism specifically created with situations like this in mind. The Ministerial Action Group has in the past been tough-minded, warning, admonishing and suspending countries from the Commonwealth. It has doctrine, from the Harare declaration of 1991 on democracy and human rights, through the Latimer House Principles of 2003 on the separation of powers, to the enhanced CMAG mandate of 2011, to guide it in its work. But the group has been slow and inattentive, and the countries, especially Britain and India, who could have spurred it into the action its title promises, have not yet done so. That needs to start now, before it is too late.

PP3 Reaffirming that it is the responsibility of the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population;

PP4 Reaffirming that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, as applicable, (PP3 19/2)

PP5 Taking note of the Government of Sri Lanka's National Plan of Action to Implement the Recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and its commitments as set forth in response to the findings and recommendations of the LLRC,

PP6 Noting with concern that the National Plan of Action does not adequately address all of the findings and constructive recommendations of the LLRC,

PP7 Recalling the constructive recommendations contained in the LLRC's report, including the need to credibly investigate widespread allegations of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances, demilitarize the north of Sri Lanka, implement impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms, re-evaluate detention policies, strengthen formerly independent civil institutions, reach a political settlement on the devolution of power to the provinces, promote and protect the right of freedom of expression for all and enact rule of law reforms, (PP5 19/2 modified)

PP8 Also noting with concern that the National Plan of Action and the LLRC's report do not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law, (PP6 19/2, modified)

PP9 Expressing concern at the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, torture, violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, as well as intimidation of and reprisals against human rights defenders, members of civil society and journalists, and threats to judicial independence and the rule of law,

PP10 Also noting with concern the failure by the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its public commitments, including on devolution of political authority, which is integral to reconciliation and the full enjoyment of human rights by all members of its population,

PP11 Expressing appreciation for the Government of Sri Lanka's efforts in facilitating the visit of a technical mission from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and encouraging the Government of Sri Lanka to increase its dialogue and cooperation with the OHCHR,

Welcomes the Report of the OHCHR on advice and technical assistance for the Government of Sri Lanka on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and the recommendations and conclusions contained therein, in particular on the establishment of a truth-seeking mechanism as an integral part of a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to transitional justice; and notes the High Commissioner's call for an independent and credible international investigation into alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law;

Urges the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations in the OHCHR report;

Reiterates its call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to expeditiously and effectively implement the constructive recommendations made in the LLRC report and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice equity, accountability, including investigations of violations of international law, and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans; (OP1 19/2, modified)

Urges the Government of Sri Lanka to cooperate with special procedures mandate holders and formally respond to outstanding requests, including by providing unfettered access to the Special Rapporteurs on independence of judges and lawyers; human rights defenders; freedom of expression; freedom of association and assembly; the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; and discrimination against women;

Encourages the OHCHR and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Government of Sri Lanka, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps; (OP3 19/2, modified)

Requests the OHCHR, with input from relevant special procedures mandate holders, as appropriate, to present an interim report at the twenty-fourth session and a report in an interactive dialogue at the twenty-fifth session of the Human Rights Council, on the implementation of the resolution.